While the nation is going through the worst recession in modern history, our dollar is deflating because of government debt and we are electronically printing a trillion dollars; unemployment is at 10.2%, let’s tax the American people $752 billion (three quarters of a trillion dollars) and create a new entitlement and spend $1.8 trillion on something less than one in five Americans think is their top concern: health care. Three-quarters of likely voters believe the plan will force employers to give up providing insurance, shredding the “if you like it you can keep it promise.”

All while the American public overwhelmingly oppose the plan, and for triple political pain points, we can have the biggest votes on abortion, immigration, taxes, guns, the public option, Medicare cuts, massive spending and government control all rolled up in one vote, days after special elections that saw Independent voters run like scaled cats, screaming from the Democrats.

And at the same time as the President’s approval rating among likely voters glides ever downward..

Genius, isn’t it? And rational too.

Apparently the secret to passing ObamaCare is for the President to acknowledge that all Members of Congress have something they don’t like about the bill, but to vote for it regardless:

AP reports the President said in New York yesterday:

“The bill you least like” improves coverage for millions, he said in New York. “Let’s make sure that we keep our eye on the prize.”

Seems a little strange to announce this in New York, a blue state, that members need to hold their nose and vote for health care reform. Is this the winning formula? Is holding New York members of Congress becoming tough? And if the President needed to say this in New York, what does this mean for the rest of the country?

The roll call vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1776 is instructive of what happens to a bill that cannot stop the filibuster on the motion to proceed. President Obama and the White House asked Senator Reid to put $247 billion in new spending off budget to buy off the American Medical Association. Majority Leader Reid was embarrassed. The White House, Senator Reid said, wanted him to bring the bill up. He needed 60 votes to stop the filibuster. He got 47 votes. Missed the mark by 13 votes. Here is the simple filibuster math (60 minus 13 = 47.)

Perhaps this is why President Obama did not go public on the vote, he did not want to risk a Chicago is knocked out in the first round of voting despite his personal lobbying for the Olympics type experience.

This is a lesson for everyone: no cloture, no laundry. And 60 votes in the Senate is a tough number to hit, even with 60 Democratic voting Senators (58 Dems and two independents). S. 1776 is dead. The bill did not even make it past the motion to proceed.

Today, AP ran a story questioning whether President Obama has the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster on ObamaCare. Really? Really, really. Here is some of Charles Babington’s piece:

Read More →

The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide, in McDonald v. Chicago, whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun laws. That puts the focus on the Court’s newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, and on President Obama’s future picks for the Court.

Gun owners were alarmed by Sotomayor’s nomination to the Court, because of her “extreme anti-gun philosophy” and record on the Second Circuit, in the words of former NRA president Sandy Froman. At her Senate hearing this summer, Sotomayor defended that record by saying that her hands were tied by old Supreme Court precedent. Now that she’s on the High Court, her hands are no longer tied. She will have a lot of explaining to do if she decides in McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is the only significant right in the Bill of Rights that doesn’t apply to the states. Such a decision would indicate that she was not serious when she promised the Senate that she would put the rule of law above ideology.

Today’s announcement ensures that gun owners will continue to play a big role in Supreme Court confirmations, just as they did this summer. The Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right, moved the battle over gun rights from the legislatures to the courts. That set the stage for gun owners to enter the judicial wars. The decision to review McDonald puts the future of gun rights back squarely in the Supreme Court, reinforcing the conviction among gun owners that their fate is now in the hands of judges and that their continued involvement in the judicial confirmation process is vital.

Whatever the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald, it will further focus the Second Amendment community on the needs for constitutionalist judges. Heller was limited to federal gun laws and the District of Columbia, but most of the laws that worry gun owners are at the state and local level. If the McDonald decision recognizes an individual Second Amendment right at that level, the number of gun rights cases – and thus the importance of the judges issue to gun owners – will explode. Should the Supreme Court rule the other way in McDonald, the anger of gun owners will be a force to reckon with every time there’s a Supreme Court nomination.

Cross-posted at the Committee for Justice blog.

While a little late and lacking an official position against her, the National Rifle Association has expressed its “very strong concerns” with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Republican Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, the NRA used particularly harsh language for an organization often hesitant - to say the least - to appear partisan. To wit:

But the organization’s letter is far from partisan - rather, it focused intently on Judge Sotomayor’s dismal record regarding, and lack of respect for, the Second Amendment and the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, an AP report that Congress has voted to allow licensed gun owners to carry loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The bill easily passed Wednesday in the House by a vote 279-147. On Tuesday, the Senate passed a similar measure.

The House and Senate votes mark a return to Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded guns in national parks before being set aside by a federal judge in March. The measure was included as a rider on a bill which imposes additional restrictions on credit-card companies. The newly-restored right to carry in national parks and wildlife refuges only applies where it is also permitted by state law.

Read More →

Gun sales surge after Obama’s election

Chávez gift to Obama shoots book to No. 2 on Amazon.com

Once again The New York Times unleashes a not-so-hidden agenda on its reading public. Here the Times is regurgitating the debunked claim that “90%” of Mexico’s recovered guns used in crime south of the border are from U.S. gun dealers. There is a lot of misdirection in this piece against gun dealers and gun shows, as well. Contradictory claims are made with no proof offered but the say so of The Times.

The Times begins its tall tale by talking about Mexican gun smugglers that find it easy to buy “military style” weapons at U.S. gun shops to be smuggled into Mexico. The story talks of these “lightly regulated” gun dealers and blames them for the smuggling apparently because no records are kept or buyer’s identities ascertained. And near the top half of the story is the debunked “90%” claim.

Read More →

Wait a minute Mom. Don’t let little Johnny go to his buddy Tommy’s house. Tommy’s parents are psychos that own — **gasp** — GUNS! This is the message that ABC is telling parents in an April 10 piece headlined, “Before Arranging Playdates, Ask About Guns.”

Here ABC attempts to make every gun owner seem like a lunatic just ready to blow and encourages parents to be deathly afraid of anyone that owns a gun. It encourages parents to pry into the lives of family members of their kid’s friends and bases it all on the lies passed off as scary gun violence statistics.

Naturally, ABC’s back up for this anti-gun screed is by a supposedly “non partisan” anti-gun group called PAX USA, an organization with board and advisory councils filled with left-wing Hollywood actors such as Richard Belzer, Tim Robbins, and Rob Reiner among many others.

Read More →

Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.

And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.

Read More →

See, the thing that makes crazy people, well… crazy, is that they don’t do things like normal people. Laws, rules, even simple human kindness is meaningless to such unbalanced people. The same can be said of criminals. See the thing that makes them criminals is that they don’t obey laws. But the Memphis Commercial Appeal’s Rich Locker seems to think making a law will magically make a wacko suddenly heed reason. On top of that, to illustrate his allusion he conflates the criminal actions of a man in Alabama to laws in Tennessee in order to justify his anti-gun sentiment for Tennesseans. Will these disingenuous Old Media types never learn a love of logic?

The tragic and criminal actions of the nut in Alabama that killed 10 people in a wild traveling rampage served as Locker’s platform to advocate for a Tennessee law that would make illegal the carrying load guns in a vehicle. He seems to insinuate that such a law would have prevented the sicko in Alabama from driving around killing people. Locker neglects to reveal how some words on a piece of paper, though, could prevent a madman from transporting a loaded gun in a car.

The opening paragraph is a perfect example of this conflation in order to draw out an emotional reaction in the reader.

Read More →

The assignment for Central Connecticut State University student John Walberg and his two classmates was to give an oral presentation on a “relevant issue in the media.” The three chose school violence for their topic.

After the oral presentation was over, professor Paula Anderson of Communication 140, promptly filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against student Wahlberg claiming he made students “scared and uncomfortable.” Professor Anderson deemed Wahlberg a “perceived risk” and felt it was her duty to “protect” her class.

What did the young man say in his oral assignment that was so threatening? Shockingly, Wahlberg had the temerity to discuss concealed carry laws, guns on campus in the hands of law abiding students, and the problems with the concept of a “gun free zone.” He was gauche enough to have posited that if students and/or professors had legal guns on their persons in 2007 the death toll in the Virginia Tech shooting spree could have been much lower.

Read More →

MSNBC took the occasion of a triple homicide on Chicago’s south side to push its own anti-”assault rifle” meme on February 27 by including the words “assault rifle” in the headline of its story on the incident. No other media source, however, took this unusual step. So, here we have some old fashioned bias by MSNBC.

MSNBC’s version of the story clumsily screams “Man charged in assault rifle killings of 3 teens” over the top of its AP wire feed. Yet, while every story in the news and certainly every AP story mentions that the killer used an “assault rifle,” only MSNBC put the words in the headline. This befits MSNBC’s anti-gun agenda, presumably.

Read More →

Seriously, do the kindly folks at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s editorial board even know what the definition of the word logic is? In theirs headlined, “Hysteria fuels sales of guns and ammo,” the Sun-Sentinel takes Floridians to task for being so stupid as to be afraid of Obama’s gun banning plans, claiming that Obama “didn’t do it.” But, even after telling readers no one wants to ban guns, the piece ends with the Sun-Sentinel editorial board advocating for the banning of guns! So the message is, no one wants a gun ban but we should ban guns? This is the sort of logical disconnect that fuels the very “hysteria” that the paper is claiming to want to dispel.

And this ridiculous about face isn’t the only illogical idea or uninformed claim the piece makes, either. Just about every word in this piece proves that the editorial board of the Sun-Sentinel is wholly uninformed about the Constitution and the technical aspects of firearms, not to mention being uninformed about the various gun banning bills floating about Congress and the several states at this very moment.

Read More →

Want a gun in Illinois? Fine. Then you’ll be forced to carry an expensive, million dollar insurance policy to be “allowed” to observe your Second Amendment right. At least, that will be the law if lefty gun-banner Kenneth Dunkin has any say in the matter.

Dunkin (D, Chicago) has made this attempt to undermine the Second Amendment even worse than a mere “insurance” policy. He has also slipped into this unConstitutional morass a provision that says gun owners will be liable if their gun is used in a crime after it has been stolen from them. The bill also authorizes the State Police to confiscate the firearm owner’s ID (FOID) from any citizen that doesn’t comply with purchasing the hefty insurance policy.

Read More →

You would think that a president who taught constitutional law would understand one of the most basic constitutional concepts. But a look at the Obama Administration’s version of the White House website whitehouse.gov reveals that this may not be the case.

In the section of the site under Our Government —> The Constitution, there is a brief discussion of the Bill of Rights, and then each of the first ten amendments is listed, but not in the original language of the constitution itself. Instead, an interpretation of what each amendment means in the view of the Obama administration is presented.

Take at look at how Team Obama describes the second amendment on the White House website:

“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”

What is wrong with this picture?

Read More →